James Titcomb, writing in the Telegraph, has spotted a hugely regressive factor involving electric cars. And the faster the Government pushes us towards EVs, the more drastic the consequences. The problem is the driveway divide which he discovered after buying his own EV:
I have an advantage in the electric transition: the humble driveway. Unlike almost half of the country who live in terraced housing or flats, my dwelling has a dedicated parking spot where I have been able to install a wall-mounted charger.
In a petrol-powered world, the driveway divide did not matter. Whatever one’s domestic circumstances, we all had to queue up at the forecourt and pump fuel into our vehicle every few hundred miles. In the electric age, meanwhile, driveway ownership divides motorists into haves and have-nots.
There are obvious convenience benefits to being able to charge up domestically. Leaving the house with the equivalent of a full tank every day and never having to visit a petrol station easily outweighs the moderate inconvenience of charging on the occasional longer journeys.
But the main advantage of charging from one’s own house is financial. On today’s smart overnight tariff, charging a battery from empty to full costs less than a fiver. In comparison, filling up an average family petrol car costs £75, according to the RAC Foundation. A full tank will go further than a charged battery, but the difference is still huge on a per-mile basis: around £2 to drive 100 miles in the EV, compared to £14 for petrol.
This has always been the promise of electric cars, even for those unconvinced by the environmental factor: while the car’s sticker price may be higher, you will save on running costs in the long-run.
That calculation, however, has completely broken down for those who are unable to plug in at home. While the rise of smart meters and EV-only energy tariffs mean charging at home costs almost nothing, soaring electricity prices have led the price of public charging to hit an all-time high.
Powering up at an ultra-rapid station costs the equivalent of £28 for 100 miles – almost double that of a petrol car – and this has risen significantly in the last two years. Slower chargers, such as those placed in lampposts by councils, are slightly cheaper, but not by enough to make EVs financially viable. Supermarkets and other shops that once offered free charging as a way to get people in the door have stopped doing so.
When electric cars are both more expensive to buy and more expensive to run, owning them makes little sense. No wonder, then, that the EV-owning class is disproportionately those with dedicated parking – 93% of people who have given up their petrol-powered vehicle have a home charger.
When those without a driveway – estimated at up to 40% of the population – have no financial incentive to own an electric car, it should not be a surprise that ownership is so far behind official targets.
Something Titcomb doesn’t mention is the prospect of a whole new type of protocol also. EV owners who’ve driven a long way will turn at up relatives’ or friends’ houses expecting to plug in on arrival, rather than filling up at a local petrol station, won’t they? Adult children rolling up for the weekend will do the same. It’d be as if in the old days the host was expected to have half a dozen cans of petrol waiting in the porch.
This means well-heeled homeowners with offroad parking and plug-in facilities, despite being rinsed for free volts by their guests, can offer electrical hospitality. After all, you could hardly send your guests off to pay vastly more at a commercial charger, could you? Meanwhile, those without drives will have no choice but to send Uncle Jack and Auntie Nancy off to some rip-off plug-in facility at a nearby shopping centre. Unless of course they’ve had the good sense to hang on to their petrol car.
It’s another way EV cars and the mandates could divide Britain even more than it already is. And, big surprise, now it’s a Labour Government doing everything it can to accelerate the imbalance.
Titcomb concludes:
One way or another, the pavement tax will need addressing before the majority of the population is forced on to EVs. If not, electric car mandates will become even more unpopular than they are now.
Worth reading in full.
Stop Press: Britain will become a “laughing stock” unless hybrid cars are banned from 2030, Net Zero lobbyists have said. According to Electric Vehicles U.K. (EVUK), allowing some hybrid cars to remain on sale after 2030 would be a “catastrophic misstep” and hold back the rise of EVs. It comes after the Government pledged to bring forward the ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2035 to 2030 but made an exception for certain hybrid vehicles to remain on sale.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Two new studies show mRNA-jabbed people have a much higher risk of getting Covid than unvaccinated people… and those who have received mRNA Covid vaccines are at least twice as likely to be infected with the coronavirus as unvaccinated people, according to two new papers from researchers in Indiana and Ohio.
Worse, the newer of the two studies, which covered Omicron this autumn, found risk actually rises with the number of shots. had received three or more shots were more than three times as likely to be infected as those who hadn’t received any!
Very “safe” and “effective” for Pfizer´s bank account ….
With the bonus of being immune to liability; what’s not to like? Money talks, in the drug trade.
Kinda ironic that in an article about scaremongering, you are banging on about Omicron ‘infections’. Who cares how many people
catchtest positive for a cold?It’s been the biggest Crime against Humanity ever seen and yet no one is being prosecuted.
100% agree and sadly it continues.
Whilst there is some hope of an increasing realisation amongst the sheep I can’t see the MSM/government reporting honestly unless the increase in deaths/illness accelerates to such a degree that even those bastards can’t continue to ignore it.
Indeed. The only people we (filthy unjabbed clean bloods) know getting Covid are those who have had the jab.
It always gladdens my heart and gives me cause for optimism when i see that there are professionals prepared to subject the frequent public health panics to the evidence. Not “the science” which is now a byword for manipulative fear casting and a cloak for control and authoritarianism. . Thanks Andrew and the many others who are ripping the clothes off of the public health emperors.
Tripledemic… lies, lies & more lies.
Business as usual then.
Dr Mercola’s take on the increase in RSV in children with suggestions of how to support children’s health.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/covid-lockdowns-kids-gut-microbiomes-cola/
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/12/joseph-mercola/bill-gates-plans-for-new-catastrophic-contagion/
“…Now, the Catastrophic Contagion exercise predicts SEERS-25 will kill 20 million people worldwide, including 15 million children, and many who survive the infection will be left with paralysis and/or brain damage. In other words, the “cue” given is that the next pandemic will likely target children rather than the elderly, as was the case with COVID-19.
This is an interesting coincidence, seeing how rates of toddlers and young children hospitalized with influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is already spiking.
COVID Jabs Are Destroying People’s Immune Systems
Coincidentally, over the past year, researchers have been warning that the COVID jabs may be dysregulating and destroying people’s immune systems, leaving them vulnerable to all sorts of infections.
According to a study9 posted on the preprint server medRxiv in May 2021, the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID jab “reprograms both adaptive and innate immune responses, causing immune depletion.”
In August 2021, a French group of pediatric infectious disease experts also warned that “immunity debt” caused by a lack of exposure to common viruses and bacteria during COVID lockdowns and school closures might predispose children to suffer more infections in the future.10
They predicted the decrease in viral and bacterial exposure that train your child’s immune system may result in a rebound of a variety of infectious diseases, including influenza and RSV) which is precisely what we’re now seeing. If a modified enterovirus gets added into the mix, it’s not difficult to see how parents might get spooked enough to start lining their kids up for more shots — including parents in African nations…”